Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-07-21

I
right TO do SO, snd by such agreeme1,
] become interstate carriers; bu. i they
CaDuGt sgrJe, the act does not
! undertake to Co5Tce them 10 DO their
business together upon terms that may
! be Justly Objectionable u Injurious
. Through tickets ere indispensable
advantages, bus assuming for the
sake Of argument the. they
rasy be deemed facilities" Tor receiving,
| forwarding aud delivering passengers 20
connecting Iines, the carriers are only
required To afford reasonable, proper and
equal facilities. T1eV gro not required
( 90 afford special, unreasonable, improper
or unequal faCili'isS. This presents
! the question whether the payment OF
commissions Is Itself, or as Incidental to
the enjoyment OF travelling facilities,
/ reasonable aad proper within the purpose
o. the statute. The facility Of
/ through tickets is equally offered to Gil
and may be enjoyed without gommls-
/ SONS. If the company selling the tickets
/ should charge g commission II
would doubtless be re gaCded az
an imposition end therefore unreasonable
and improper These commissions are
grgtuities TO INDUCE sp,Cial efforts TOR
I the company paying them. II the statute
I does not give one company authority to
sUbsjdiZe the agents Of another
1 company, and K the prac
tice is injurious in itself, it
certainly CanuOl be reasonable and
/ proper. TGe state does not divest the rail
road company of the exclusive right TO
control is Own Internal affairs, TO employ
/ is own sgents, to regulate their duties
anG 10 pay them such compensation IS II
msy deem proper. The right Of
/ ownership Of railroad property with the
/ power of control over the employer
! ana the management Of the property i.
as absolute under the GCt as Oelyr2
/ It's passage The regulation OF com
merce between the states which IS all
/ that act cOntemp,ate5 does not involve
community Of property or Joint control OF
/ sugOrGilates among these very companies
/ That honor through tickets. The corporate
powers OF every company for
all administrative and govern
! inc purposes within is prescribed
/ spheres remail Unimp2 VITA the le%i-
I tIm2;e exercise Of these powers another
. company mas 10 caGCCrn and 10 right 20
I n!eruea3Io for the pr per government o.
their Cwu sal Criiuates. The defendant
. companies hava DjldeU t5Cir Ggent- to re-
/ ceivr commissions from atn-r companies.
q. q hive directed them net 10 sell over
the roads @: companies that refuse 10
Ir.sgnuZe This cooperate authority,
bus iusIst on Eubsid.='Dg agents.
s.. 10 these directions the defendants have
r9J tTlrscendei their reasonable rEht7
. One person O. corporation has TO Iigal
TO interfere with the employee OF Glo h-r
aaa tia statUse does not DISTURB AIS
-turfl rl~fsr~fs.'p The
a.i ldgnts Nigh rest upon their .gh. 10
control the ,tI.ial conduct Of tnoi- oWl
sgents, but rley 90 further ami show by
evidence the practical effects Of
commissions and tnat their natural
ami unusual tendencies axe TO avoid
/ abuses.
The opinion then quotes the testimony
IT an officer Of the penuSy Van,& Railroad
ana others TO the effect tnet commissions
were used 10 corrupt agents 30 sell
I through tickets over The commission pay
I ing lines 10 preference to others, that these
| commissions, amounting in eversge 10
! 2J p5r cent OF the value OF the tickets,
were frequently divided win the
purchaser, thereby making s DIS
( elimination IN favor of the
company which paid commissions,
and inst the agents sometimes received
more money iram other companies in this
wsy than they received from the con-
pauiea which employed them, and so
passed in 9 measure on. Of their
EMPLOYERS control The opinion contif ?
ues "a practice capable Of producing,
anC havng the tendency TO produce the
res ais thus described, cannot be reasOn-
able or proper, and 2 railroad company
is tally justified in the use OF oil
t"Usul precsutiOu to protec. itself ard IFS
agents agaIost such invasions OF It's
!carnOrate authority and It's business NOR
atty.
According to the testimony the defend
ants are supported in that position on
this question by very large mai rity
of connecting roads, showing decided
| prepCuderanCG Of opinion against the
practice. The scope Of The com
pla.aants' position is clearly pre-
scented by the distinC. assertion
OF right of one corporation to employ
and pay for its own interest an Official
servant Of another corporation to winch
this service is primarily AMI exclusively
due. a theory of this character ought
not to be and is not recognized IN
business affairs or in Otlicial lie. a.
vided service between many masters can-
rot De Satisfactory 10 any, anu - L"t"
il Injurious to the person so allied 1t
follows from these views that defendant
companies in prohibiting their egeuts
from receiving commits Sions and IN re-
I fusiug to sell through tickets over the
roads Of the cOmplainants while
they insist on paying com.
missions to the defendants
agents have not contraveued the proyls-
ions of the at. The DEPENDENTS ressona-
biz and fairly offered to afford all rea
sonable, proper and equal facili-
ties tor the receiving and delivering
of passengers to and from their
several lines and those connecting there
with, end did not discriminate in any re-
spect between such come citing lines. In
requiring the cessation Of commissions tc
their agents when entering into business
arrangements with the connecting road:
the defendants only demand what was
reasonable and proper, and the com
plants by their refusal to refrsin from
paying commissions on tickets issueC
, by the defendants voluntarily excluded
. I -, n